...Why is Empire referring to this movie as a blockbuster when no blocks have yet been busted? This term should be reserved for films that are runaway successes, like the original Star Wars and more recently, Avatar.

...it appears that the makers of the film have little or no respsect for the actual source material. The book was brilliant and, while books don't always translate well to the screen, it appears from this review that the film makers should have followed the authors vision a little more than their own.

World War Z is VERY loosely based on Max (son of Mel) Brook’s excellent 2006 apocalyptic horror novel of the same name. Brad Pitt’s company, Plan B Entertainment, acquired the rights to the book a few years ago but the film has had, if rumour is to be believed, quite a torturous journey to the multiplexes.

The film tells the story of Gerry Lane (Pitt), an ex-UN employee who has retired to spend more time with his family. But when a worldwide zombie pandemic threatens mankind, he is forced to spring into action. He sets off on a globetrotting adventure to such far-flung destinations as Korea, India, Israel and, erm, Wales, in a effort to discover the source of the outbreak and find perhaps even find a cure. And, that’s it really.

World War Z is a film that arrives with the dreaded “troubled production” label. There has been a huge amount of negative hype surrounding its long journey to the screen – a ballooning budget, massive rewrites, extensive reshoots, and reports of a very strained relationship between Pitt and the director, Marc Forster (who also made the awful Quantum of Solace). However, the trailers DID look promising. And early word suggested that maybe the film wasn’t quite as bad as many had feared.

So, finally, World War Z is here. Is it any good?

No. It’s not. At all.

The film starts off quite well and it wastes virtually no time in getting straight into the action with a zombie outbreak in downtown Philadelphia (these scenes were shot in Glasgow, believe it or not). Lane, his wife (Mireille Enos) and his two daughters get caught up in the middle of the widespread panic and looting but manage to escape to safety. Once his family are safely on board an aircraft carrier (because he’s THAT important) Lane reluctantly agrees to take on a mission to get to the bottom of the outbreak, not only for the sake of his family, but for all mankind. He and his wife are both given satellite ph

Just seen the film and my expectations were quite low after all the negative press beforehand about reshooting and ballooning budgets, etc. Therefore when I left the theatre I had a spring in my step as the film was actually very enjoyable. The opening 40 mins is up there with the best edge-of-your-seat openers, the Phildelphia (Glasgow) scene was gripping as was the building / helicopter scene. It ain't gonna break box office records but just watch it and enjoy it for what it is: a friggin zombi film.

I not only had no idea Matthew Fox was in it (thereby ratcheting down the talent pool several notches) but apparently John Gordon Sinclair was a Seal too? Where?! Although unrecognisability was the order of the day (James Badge Dale lost the hairdo - pity Pitt didn't).

One of the things I'd probably disagree with is more to do with comments on the book - Brooks seemed a little naive about some of his geopolitics tbh but I applauded the attempt to make it international. I didn't really have an issue with editing and thought one of the cleverest bits of the film was during the opening sequence where a couple of still moments flashed by in the middle of the mob, indicating something odd going on in the middle of the panic. And the phone thing made me groan. I'd made a comment a couple of days before about being sick of the cliche of people doing sneaky things forgetting to turn them off and then that turned up.

It's alright, some of the action scenes are quite thrilling, but you feel some of it was reshot on a much lower budget ie the final third, or on different equipment giving the film a different look in place. I do wonder where some of the 200 million was spent and how much extra footage is just sitting there on the cutting room floor as it went through various edits.

I tend to have a problem with Marc Forster as he ruined a film that I was so looking forward to(quantum of solace)with his editing and from previous posts it looks like the same might have happened here,I will watch World War Z tomorrow,but with a touch of trepidation,you don't have to bombard people with multiple camera angles in a very short period of time. In Forsters defence he did also direct one of my favourite films in Stranger Than Fiction

I went to see this yesterday, and overall I enjoyed it - It certainly isnt a bad film. However, I did feel after coming out that there was a far better film trying to get out somewhere, and it wasnt as good as it could have been. Some of the editing was shocking to be honest - The amount of cuts and edits at times was ridiculous - At one point I registered that not a single shot lasted longer than a second, and it wasnt even an action sequence! I almost clapped when we got a shot that lasted five seconds! It did 'feel' like there had been issues when making it too - like it had lost its way - and the 15 rating seemed unnecessary when you consider the complete lack of any gore: Why go for that rating when the film had clearly been made with a safer remit from the outset? And as for the ending (and its not really a spoiler here, but turn away now if you want), it just kind of finishes, without really having a satisfying conclusion - Whether a sequel will happen, I dont know, but it felt like Part One with more to come....

Having said all of that, it was entertaining enough - Maybe my expectations were too high as I was really hoping for a great film having read the book. Just dont expect a classic, because sadly it isnt.

Pleasant surprise overall, the odd character does a stupid thing here and there (zombie films are always prone to this!) and the CGI is a tad dodgy occasionally, but beyond that I really enjoyed it.

It's edited to within an inch of it's like to secure the PG-13 rating, but that leads to some surprisingly effective moments at times, particularly during the opening outbreak in Philadelphia, where the brief flashes of carnage hint at something more sinister.

So yeah, colour me surprised, not bad at all really. It's a darn sight more satisfying than a fair few other blockbusters I've seen recently.

Pleasant surprise overall, the odd character does a stupid thing here and there (zombie films are always prone to this!) and the CGI is a tad dodgy occasionally, but beyond that I really enjoyed it.

It's edited to within an inch of it's like to secure the PG-13 rating, but that leads to some surprisingly effective moments at times, particularly during the opening outbreak in Philadelphia, where the brief flashes of carnage hint at something more sinister.

So yeah, colour me surprised, not bad at all really. It's a darn sight more satisfying than a fair few other blockbusters I've seen recently.

7/10

It's a 15. And even at a 15 they could have had a bit more blood than they included I think.

It's a 15. And even at a 15 they could have had a bit more blood than they included I think.

I know it's a 15 here and could get away with a whole heap more violence, but it's a PG-13 stateside and designed to be as such, the certificate it gets here is largely irrelevant, it's still the same film.

It's a 15. And even at a 15 they could have had a bit more blood than they included I think.

I know it's a 15 here and could get away with a whole heap more violence, but it's a PG-13 stateside and designed to be as such, the certificate it gets here is largely irrelevant, it's still the same film.

The reading on US PG-13 is about the same as a 15 here though - they jump straight to 17 then 18 at that, with no intermediate. Our rating seems to be based on the sustained threat level but their system is fairly baffling - what they OK for 13yos in the cinema compared to thinks like their drinking age limits seems a bit out of whack in terms of how they view maturity. A major thing with the US is, oddly, language and I think you can see where that's been unrealistically toned down to meet rating targets. But the rest? Films like The Mummy, Hobbit, lots have a bit more blood/ickiness at this rating. Heck - I have no idea how, but Taken 2 was PG13 in the US

Also Warm Bodies - I didn't watch that, but perhaps you might have a better idea how the zombie scenes were shot? If so, did they keep everything 'zomebie' offscreen?

Apart from that, given the regularity with which different cuts make different markets (and generate thousands of pages on censorship on here!), and given they are selling it to a significant part of the audience on its link to a well-received book, it seems a little odd they'd aim the film at 13yos. 13yos who are probably watching Walking Dead anyway.

The reading on US PG-13 is about the same as a 15 here though - they jump straight to 17 then 18 at that, with no intermediate. Our rating seems to be based on the sustained threat level but their system is fairly baffling - what they OK for 13yos in the cinema compared to thinks like their drinking age limits seems a bit out of whack in terms of how they view maturity. A major thing with the US is, oddly, language and I think you can see where that's been unrealistically toned down to meet rating targets. But the rest? Films like The Mummy, Hobbit, lots have a bit more blood/ickiness at this rating. Heck - I have no idea how, but Taken 2 was PG13 in the US

Not entirely sure I'd go that far, I know what you're trying to say with the comparison of the jump to R/18, but whilst these days there's plenty they'll allow in a PG-13 that would require a 15 here, there's an awful lot you could stick in a 15 here that would never in a month of Sundays get anything less than an R rating in the states. The overlap between the two ratings is relatively small, the extreme end of one and the thoroughly shallow end of the other.

For the record I'm actually surprised World War Z managed a PG-13, whilst there's almost no gore on display it sets a surprisingly sinister tone throughout (mainly the reason the BBFC lumped it with a 15), I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with the vast majority of minors seeing it, but I guess that's up their "guardians" in the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Also Warm Bodies - I didn't watch that, but perhaps you might have a better idea how the zombie scenes were shot? If so, did they keep everything 'zomebie' offscreen?

Warm Bodies actually had quite a bit more gore, certainly more show onscreen than WWZ, but the overall tone was far more playful, so I guess it allows them to be a little more slack with the reigns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Apart from that, given the regularity with which different cuts make different markets (and generate thousands of pages on censorship on here!), and given they are selling it to a significant part of the audience on its link to a well-received book, it seems a little odd they'd aim the film at 13yos. 13yos who are probably watching Walking Dead anyway.

He was the dude that went outside the plane to fix the fuel pipe when they were in Korea...and obviously never came back.

Thank you! Did not recognise him at all

Not quite the same for me. The moment I saw him I almost yelled out "Gregory!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: sjmlondon

And finally what was Malcolm Tucker doing in a welsh path lab?

Torchwood.

Much credit to Peter Capaldi by the way. One of the few folk who actually looked like he was genuinely troubled by a zombie apocalypse - everyone else looked oddly placid, bar maybe David Morse and his lack of dentures.

Morse was a terrible part. I hate saying it, because I admire him so much as an actor, but there was nothing he could do with that ridiculously lousy exposition (the worst part of the film, almost) and that silly attempt to do some kind of Silence of the Lambs set-up talking to him. Ludicrous.

After the best press this movie was getting about a month ago, my expectations had dipped massively. But this was solid. In fact, better than Man of Steel - which after two screenings, really shows its flaws. I would say that MoS is more accurately a 3-star film, this, 4 ish. The final act is absolutely fine. It's small-scaleness works well.